Bug 138395

Summary:	Release notes don't explain package removals
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Tethys <sta040>
Component:	basesystem	Assignee:	Ed Bailey <ed>
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	Mike McLean <mikem>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	3	CC:	notting, pb
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2004-11-09 00:39:52 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Tethys 2004-11-08 21:34:30 UTC

Unlike previous versions of Fedora Core, the release notes for FC3
don't contain the rationale for the removal of packages, nor details
of what's now replacing the functionality they provided.

Comment 1 Ed Bailey 2004-11-08 22:08:42 UTC

It was not possible to produce that information this time around.

Comment 2 Tethys 2004-11-08 22:25:55 UTC

Now y'see... it's comments like that that will push people towards
Debian. It certainly *was* possible to produce that information.
After all, each package was removed for a reason, and someone must
know what those reasons were. Maybe you have valid reasons for not
being able to collate that information, or maybe there are reasons
why you chose not to reveal it. But if Fedora is to meet its goals
of being a community driven project, you've got to be open about
the decisions you've made, and why you've made them.

Why do you claim it wasn't possible to provide the information this
time around?

Comment 3 Ed Bailey 2004-11-09 00:39:52 UTC

Because I am the person that has been responsible for the release
notes for all of Red Hat's operating systems, I am leaving the company
at the end of the month, a replacement for my position has not yet
been hired, I'm trying to document as much of what I've done here for
the past seven years as possible before my last day, and this was just
something that there wasn't time to do.

Yeah, it's a crappy answer, but since you asked...

Comment 4 Tethys 2004-11-09 08:52:35 UTC

Actually, it's not a crappy answer at all... it's perfectly valid.
Been there, done that :-)

Comment 5 Bill Nottingham 2004-11-22 04:44:16 UTC

*** Bug 140211 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***